Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 472
    Points : 474
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:15 am

    mnztr wrote:
    The longer the penetrator the more likely it will shear. This is the finding when they tested the Kontakt 5 ERA when the USSR collapsed and the NATO got access to tanks equipped with Kontakt 5. As a result the penetrator is now thicker and shorter. If you think of a thin rod travelling at very high speed, the tip embeds itself into the armour and the ERA pushes it off its axis, I have no idea what the composition of Kontakt-5 is but I suspect it is not just explosive but layers of explosive and matrial designed to create horizontal jets of metal to deflect and disspate shaped charges and produce a cutting effect in addition to the outward blast.

    Kontakt-5 has long been since obsoleted, alongside the rounds that were designed to counter it. You're telling me in the three decades that have come and gone there hasn't been any paradigm shift in penetrator design from short and stocky penetrators, like ever? Kind of hard to believe.

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 120mm_penetratoen
    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1522
    Points : 1559
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 33
    Location : portugal

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  dino00 Thu Mar 04, 2021 11:14 am

    The Russian Armed Forces will receive the first batch of equipment on the Armata platform in 2022

    Russian Defense Minister General of the Army Sergei Shoigu said on Thursday during a conference call at the military department.

    "In 2022, it is planned to supply the troops with an experimental-industrial batch of T-14 tanks, T-15 infantry fighting vehicles and T-16 armored repair and recovery vehicles," the minister said.


    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/10833307

    George1, LMFS and lancelot like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28751
    Points : 29281
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:54 am


    Kontakt-5 has long been since obsoleted, alongside the rounds that were designed to counter it. You're telling me in the three decades that have come and gone there hasn't been any paradigm shift in penetrator design from short and stocky penetrators, like ever? Kind of hard to believe.

    The point is that Kontakt-5 will never be obsolete... it will be less effective against newer rounds designed after it was put into service where the penetrator designers knew how it worked and could change their designs to make it less effective but even the newest penetrators lose penetration when it is present so for its weight and dimension it is still worth fitting to a vehicle if the alternative is nothing.

    To be honest I thought Kontakt-5 was the first ERA tile that was actually effective against Kinetic rounds as well as HEAT rounds because that is what the revelation of those tests really was... not only did HATO not believe it was very effective, they didn't think it would have any effect on kinetic rounds at all... they thought it was only for HEAT rounds so they believed while it will stop their HEAT rounds (which we now know they massively exaggerated the field performance of anyway), they thought their tanks could at least easily penetrate the Soviet tanks with APFSDS rounds.

    This test they found they were wrong.

    During the same period they learned that the MiG-29 is actually rather dangerous at BVR because their BVR missiles are faster and longer ranged than Sparrow missiles carried by the F-15.... so they found it was a double shock to learn the helmet mounted sights and high off boresight missiles made them unbeatable by the F-16... and that the R-73 is actually a rather capable missile.

    Just as well the Soviet Union was broken and Russia and other components of it were being systematically asset stripped and robbed by thieves like Browder et al.

    A vehicle with modern heavy base armour and Kontakt-5 and a decent APS like the current model ARENA or the newer systems that yaw the incoming penetrators and you will probably find the tank is fine operating anywhere.

    The irony is that the longer and slimmer rods will be much easier for the APS systems to yaw, and for HEAT rounds which are the normal and standard threat on most real battlefields its performance is still pretty good.

    "In 2022, it is planned to supply the troops with an experimental-industrial batch of T-14 tanks, T-15 infantry fighting vehicles and T-16 armored repair and recovery vehicles," the minister said.

    Nice... so units that will eventually become Armata tank or Armata motor rifle forces will have their T-90s and BMPs and BTRs and BREM vehicles replaced with Armata based vehicles.

    Later on as new replacements for other vehicles become ready then they will likely start production too and enter service as well.
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 472
    Points : 474
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:00 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The point is that Kontakt-5 will never be obsolete... it will be less effective against newer rounds designed after it was put into service where the penetrator designers knew how it worked and could change their designs to make it less effective but even the newest penetrators lose penetration when it is present so for its weight and dimension it is still worth fitting to a vehicle if the alternative is nothing.

    To be honest I thought Kontakt-5 was the first ERA tile that was actually effective against Kinetic rounds as well as HEAT rounds because that is what the revelation of those tests really was... not only did HATO not believe it was very effective, they didn't think it would have any effect on kinetic rounds at all... they thought it was only for HEAT rounds so they believed while it will stop their HEAT rounds (which we now know they massively exaggerated the field performance of anyway), they thought their tanks could at least easily penetrate the Soviet tanks with APFSDS rounds.

    This test they found they were wrong.

    During the same period they learned that the MiG-29 is actually rather dangerous at BVR because their BVR missiles are faster and longer ranged than Sparrow missiles carried by the F-15.... so they found it was a double shock to learn the helmet mounted sights and high off boresight missiles made them unbeatable by the F-16... and that the R-73 is actually a rather capable missile.

    Just as well the Soviet Union was broken and Russia and other components of it were being systematically asset stripped and robbed by thieves like Browder et al.

    A vehicle with modern heavy base armour and Kontakt-5 and a decent APS like the current model ARENA or the newer systems that yaw the incoming penetrators and you will probably find the tank is fine operating anywhere.

    By the same token one can say that the old wire bedframes should make a return as part of the tank's protection suite because they provided a non-zero contribution to the tank's survivability. Technically true, but its missing the point - the armor has to actually pay for itself by improving the tank's protection against the main threats, otherwise its not armor, its placebo. The crew can only be dead or alive - there is no accounting for the fact that your armor has degraded the penetrator by so and so percentage if at the end it still went through.

    GarryB wrote:
    The irony is that the longer and slimmer rods will be much easier for the APS systems to yaw, and for HEAT rounds which are the normal and standard threat on most real battlefields its performance is still pretty good.

    Modern segmented penetrator designs are not as rigid as the old monobloc designs, and there should be some dampening effect going on with the interfaces between the rod intervals. If the shear forces are too much it would just give way rather than affect the rest of the penetrator.
    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 A8soHQn

    Kontakt-5 also could not boast anti-tandem warhead capabilities, having predated the widespread introduction of the tandem ATGMs by a couple of years.
    TMA1
    TMA1

    Posts : 130
    Points : 132
    Join date : 2020-11-30

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  TMA1 Fri Mar 05, 2021 7:59 am

    kinda hyperbolic. kontact5 has been overcome by newer apfsds but it certainly does have virtue and i believe it does serve in protecting against some double charge HEAT rounds.
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 472
    Points : 474
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:48 am

    TMA1 wrote:kinda hyperbolic. kontact5 has been overcome by newer apfsds but it certainly does have virtue and i believe it does serve in protecting against some double charge HEAT rounds.

    Insofar as it expends the precursor charge on tandem warheads, sure. But the main charge still remains, and with it the vast majority of the HEAT round's penetration potential. In some cases the additional stand-off distance might actually allow the shaped charge jet to consolidate into a more streamlined body and penetrate even more armor so its not even guaranteed it would help.



    TMA1 likes this post

    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 472
    Points : 474
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Why 130 mm and not a bigger calibre?

    Post  lyle6 Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:51 am

    While in the interim Rheinmetall aims at improving 120 mm performances, looking further ahead in 2016 the company exhibited in Paris its 130 mm solution, showing both the gun with a 6.6 meters long barrel, and the related APFSDS ammunition, which of course raised considerable interest. This solution does not has yet an endorsement by a potential customer; the “130” magic number is thus not the result of a requirement, but comes from a thorough analysis led the Düsseldorf-based group to orient itself towards a new calibre, and it is being proposed for the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS), or at least for its heavy armed variant, the MGCS encompassing more than one effector.

    “When in 2016 we exhibited our firing demonstrator we declared that the 8% in calibre increase would have led to a 50% in performances increase,” Christoph Henselmann points out, “our aim being to bring to the target at least 50% more energy than current 120 mm rounds.” Since that date, he explains, Rheinmetall developed an expert tool that allows taking in count 50 parameters, three of them fixed, the remaining 47 variable. A tank gun is not a stand-alone system and it must cope with a series of system constraints, that in the end make the design work what Mr. Henselmann defined “an optimisation of technical compromises,” clarifying that the assumption “bigger is always better” is not in fact true.

    The two key parameters for effectiveness are the aforementioned energy that reaches the target, and the accuracy at a specific combat distance, the latter requirement for future MBTs being the double compared to current tanks, so it will be necessary to hit a target with utmost accuracy at 5 km distance. A nice challenge especially on moving targets, as the flight time will be nearly the double. Among limiting factors for the gun we find i.e. weight, in the future the aim is to have systems not exceeding the MLC60 class limit, as well as turret protection, which is required against 125 mm APFSDS rounds. “Three system interface of major importance are the turret ring diameter, the recoil force and the barrel length,” Mr. Henselmann says, the diameter influencing the vehicle width and the trunnion position, the recoil forces has an impact on many aspects of the tank, not least the weight, and might bring to the use of a muzzle brake “the muzzle brake being not an advantage if you aim at optimising the accuracy of the weapon,” he underlines. As for the barrel length the most obvious impact is on the vehicle mobility, while on the gun side it influences many aspects among which the recoil force, the hit probability, the unbalance of the weapon system, the achievable muzzle energy and gas pressure. “As the result of our simulations, we carried out over 1,100 of them which considering three fixed and 47 variable data brings to over 55,000 data used for assessments, that among other showed that not all calibres fit to every barrel length.”

    Christoph Henselmann states that following the R&D work done, it is quite clear that in the next 20-25 years the APFSDS round will remain the ammunition of choice for tanks against tanks firefights. “The subcalibre will stay as the best option, as it reaches the target very quickly, it is extremely accurate and the only way to defeat it is by physically destroying it.” While this is true, the APFSDS concept is far than optimal as less than 20% of the energy generated in the chamber will reach the target, he explains. Gas heat loss represents 72% of the energy loss, sabot mass 9% (for a 120 mm round) while air drag accounts for a further 3%, which means that only a mere 16% of the chemical energy generated in the chamber is brought to bear on the target. “We must therefore look at what we can optimise, and the gun calibre itself, when talking of penetrators which have a diameter of 20-30 mm has a minor importance, and by the way increasing the calibre means increasing the sabot mass, adding therefore to the loss of energy,” he explains.

    He also stresses that what has to be optimised is the chamber volume, which led to the 50% increase compared to the 120 mm in the first 130 mm demonstrator. According to Rheinmetall analysis, Depleted Uranium (DU) rounds, which have an edge in current energy scenarios mostly thanks to their selfsharpening shearing capability, have reached the limit, and with the increasing energy, what Mr. Henselmann referred to as the “10 MJ scenario”, the situation should reverse with an advantage for tungsten penetrators over DU ones. It is to note that Rheinmetall aims at reaching 13-14 MJ impact energy with the 120 mm APFSDS rounds currently under development. An interesting note is that he admits that neither of the penetrators, Tungsten and DU, have been tested against the latest Russian Relikt explosive reactive armour, which apparently detonates on radar command before being hit by the incoming round.

    https://www.edrmagazine.eu/why-130-mm-and-not-a-bigger-calibre

    LMFS likes this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7364
    Points : 7350
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Isos Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:21 pm

    They have Kaktus, Relikt (2 times better than kontakt 5), Malachit made for t-14.

    They have the choice if they want better than kontakt 5.

    GarryB and Big_Gazza like this post

    dino00
    dino00

    Posts : 1522
    Points : 1559
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Age : 33
    Location : portugal

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  dino00 Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:12 pm

    Isos wrote:They have Kaktus, Relikt (2 times better than kontakt 5), Malachit made for t-14.

    They have the choice if they want better than kontakt 5.

    And thy have monolith also

    GarryB, Big_Gazza and TMA1 like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 472
    Points : 474
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:18 pm

    Isos wrote:They have Kaktus, Relikt (2 times better than kontakt 5), Malachit made for t-14.

    They have the choice if they want better than kontakt 5.

    There's a strong possibility that tanks nominally clad in Kontakt-5 ERA actually have Relikt ERA active elements within the containers instead.

    TMA1 likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28751
    Points : 29281
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:52 am

    Even if they have plaster of paris inside them... when was the last Russian tank hit with an APFSDS round from a 120mm gun from a HATO tank?

    magnumcromagnon likes this post

    Isos
    Isos

    Posts : 7364
    Points : 7350
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Isos Sat Mar 06, 2021 10:11 am

    Nato have no SHORADS to defend their tanks from helicopters or now the hundreds of drones of all types that will fly above them.

    Then they will face long range artillery. Then atgm squad hitting them from out of their range. And then they will have to face 125mm APFSDS.

    We saw in NK how t-72 got destroyed from above where there is almost no protection.

    Their chance to meet russian tanks in a war is almost non existant.
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 472
    Points : 474
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Sat Mar 06, 2021 5:38 pm

    The chances of Russian armor being tested that way only stay miniscule as long as Russian armor stays just as formidable as NATO and its flunkies could only ever gather enough moral fortitude to fight trash even despite preponderance in material and technology.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28751
    Points : 29281
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Sun Mar 07, 2021 6:43 am

    The Americans believe they have superiority in all areas over the third world gas station that does not make anything.

    They were suggesting no fly zones in Syria for goodness sake... I can understand how they can create no fly zones over Libya and Iraq, but Syria?

    Patriots were amazing till they weren't.

    M1 Abrams was invincible till it wasn't.

    Russian tanks are all junk.

    The fact that they are wrong wont stop a conflict with them... it will only dramatically effect the outcome when they find out they were wrong.

    Ancient Konkurs missiles defeat Abrams tanks, while super uber TOW does not penetrate a T-90... but that doesn't mean anything right?

    Big_Gazza, JohninMK and zardof like this post

    Kiko
    Kiko

    Posts : 406
    Points : 410
    Join date : 2020-11-11

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Kiko Sun Mar 07, 2021 11:41 am

    The 2A83 152 mm gun was tested on the T-14 "Armata" - the end of the Abrams era!
    20 February

    Since the Second World War, the T-34 tank has acquired legendary status. But technology continues to evolve. Today Russia has created and is improving a new T-14 Armata tank, which it has decided to equip with a 152-millimeter gun.

    A bit of history

    History, as we know, repeats itself. Powerful guns have been installed on tanks before. And very successful. An example of this is the events of the Second World War, which proved the effectiveness of this type of weapon. In battles, our ISU-152s broke enemy tanks "Panther" and "Tiger" with one hit. And the SU-152 self-propelled guns were indispensable when taking settlements, destroying shelters and bunkers.

    At the end of the war, it was decided to get rid of such weapons due to high maintenance costs. And only in the 80s did it become necessary to create powerful means of destruction of reinforced armor of tanks and protection systems.

    Various calibers fell under the transformation, for example, 125, 140, 130 mm. However, the developers came to the conclusion that 152 mm are more attractive from the point of view of developed technological solutions and a sufficient stock of ammunition.

    In 1990, at the Kirov plant, a 152-mm caliber projectile was manufactured, which was installed on the latest development of that period - the T-80U. It was not difficult to fit the gun in size, and the fighting compartment was suitable for the T-80 standards.

    Tests of "Object 292" (this is the codename the machine received) were positive. However, for testing, two loaders had to be involved, since the large-caliber ammunition turned out to be larger and heavier than standard ammunition. Naturally, the designers were faced with the question of creating an improved projectile feed mechanism. But the coming financial crisis of the nineties stopped the development for an indefinite period, and the "Object 292" remained unfinished.

    152-mm cannon 2A83

    Another object, number 195, was developed by Soviet scientists in the Urals. The developers wanted to realize the potential of WWII self-propelled guns: to disable enemy armored vehicles from the first strike. This tank was designed from scratch and had breakthrough characteristics, namely:

    a gun with an automatic loading system;
    reduced thermal and radar signature;
    running gear with active suspension;
    radar in the guidance system;
    1650 hp engine

    The smoothbore cannon, which was equipped with the "Object 195", has a chrome-plated barrel and provides a powder gas pressure of 7700 atmospheres (the latest guns give a maximum of 3000). Thanks to this pressure, the projectile gains great speed at the beginning (1980 m / s versus 1800) and tremendous force when it collides with the target. From 5 km, the tank is capable of hitting with a force that exceeds the power of a standard ammunition by one and a half times (at a distance of 2 km).

    The developments made in the process of creating the cannon for the "Object 195" were transferred to the "Armata" tank.

    According to Rogozin, the gun installed on the Armata is capable of piercing a meter of homogeneous steel armor. It has already been created and is called "2A83". The declared characteristics were verified by tests using ammunition presented at a conference on new military weapons.

    Some experts believe that the 2A83 may be the best in the world.

    2A83 vs Rh120 L55

    But everything is learned in comparison. Until recently, the Rh120 L55 (120 mm) was considered the best gun, which is installed on Leopard 2A7 + tanks. Experimental guns XM291 (America) and NPz K-140 (Germany) could also be competitors. These are powerful guns with a caliber of 140 mm. And the KhM291 is capable of firing two types of projectiles at once: 140 and 125 mm.

    During military demonstrations in Abu Dhabi, a Russian shell managed to hit a moving tank from a distance of 12 km. The maximum recorded range was 24.7 km or more.

    It is difficult to imagine what a car with such capabilities is capable of, which also has a 100 km radar. Why such a mechanism is needed is not clear ... Is it really going to shoot at 100 km?

    The potential is, of course, promising. As the honored military leader Viktor Baranets said, the "Armata" cannon is capable of penetrating almost two-meter armor. Today this is the most powerful armored vehicle in the world.

    In addition to XM291 and K-140, our 2A83 has a couple of competitors. These are MG253 and M256, which are mounted on "Merkavas" and "Abrams" (analogs of the Rh120 cannon).

    The M256 has a 44-round autoloader, while the MG253 has 10 rounds. The maximum distance of MG253 is 6000-8000 meters (according to other sources - up to 8700 meters). The M256 cannon is capable of covering a distance of 12 km. However, the project for the production of special shells has been frozen.

    Does NATO have an analogue of "Armata"

    To equip the T-14 with a new cannon, it does not have to undergo major upgrades. Since it already provides for the replacement of various modules, including the module with the gun. Therefore, in the conditions of the plant, it is enough to remove the 2A82 module and install the 2A83. Further, the new module is docked with the tank systems without any changes.

    NATO member countries have attempted to create something similar to the 2A83 cannon. But in order to get closer to the potential of the T-14, NATO will have to revise all its developments and methods of tank building and start developing MBT practically from the very beginning.

    Experts believe that NATO will certainly be able to reach the level of "Armata" - it is only a matter of time.

    In the West, tanks with a caliber of 152 mm do not yet exist. And the projects of tanks with 140 mm cannons are either closed or frozen. Therefore, the machines use one caliber - 120 mm.

    T-14 tanks with 125 mm cannons have a slight advantage over Western vehicles. If you install a 152mm caliber, the superiority will increase significantly. No one else has such a thing, and this gives the T-14 the right to become a benchmark in tank building for more than one decade.

    https://zen.yandex.ru/media/sferalive/orudie-2a83-152-mm-ispytano-na-t14-armata--konec-epohi-abrams-60311723bd729c71d10ec2b0

    GarryB, magnumcromagnon and Big_Gazza like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28751
    Points : 29281
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:23 pm

    You don't change the gun to have a bigger gun than your opponent... you change your gun because your existing gun is marginal against your opponents armour at useful ranges.

    Changing the calibre is expensive and has other hidden costs like transport and handling of the bigger heavier rounds...

    Unless there is some commonality with Coalition 152mm calibre rounds....

    LMFS likes this post

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7294
    Points : 7443
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sun Mar 07, 2021 3:13 pm

    GarryB wrote:You don't change the gun to have a bigger gun than your opponent... you change your gun because your existing gun is marginal against your opponents armour at useful ranges.

    Changing the calibre is expensive and has other hidden costs like transport and handling of the bigger heavier rounds...

    Unless there is some commonality with Coalition 152mm calibre rounds....

    From my understanding the 152mm smoothbore will be an engineering and multi-purpose caliber, and any 'anti-armor' capacity will be an auxiliary focus. The most likely purpose is that it will be used to 'engineer' urban fighting battlegrounds to make it impossible for insurgents to bunker in multi-story buildings. One of the most ubiquitous shells would be a 152mm thermobaric shell, in which the explosive power would greatly supersede that of a 203mm HE-Frag shell. 6-10 thermobaric 152mm shells could be used to completely sheer off 1 side of the edifice of a 5-6 story concrete building, completely exposing the insurgent and completely nullifying what little cover they had left. It'll be a anti-fortification/bunker cannon, with some additional and interesting useful secondary, tertiary ancillary/auxiliary abilities.

    PhSt likes this post

    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 472
    Points : 474
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lyle6 Sun Mar 07, 2021 7:51 pm

    GarryB wrote:The Americans believe they have superiority in all areas over the third world gas station that does not make anything.

    They were suggesting no fly zones in Syria for goodness sake... I can understand how they can create no fly zones over Libya and Iraq, but Syria?

    Patriots were amazing till they weren't.

    M1 Abrams was invincible till it wasn't.

    Russian tanks are all junk.

    The fact that they are wrong wont stop a conflict with them... it will only dramatically effect the outcome when they find out they were wrong.

    The vast majority of their military might believe their hype but the designated minders don't, and those guys have managed to forestall confrontations from escalating even further thus far. Not to say they aren't as bloodthirsty as could be but it does mean that not everyone within that organization is as suicidal as to ignore displays of naked force that more than matches their own.

    GarryB wrote:
    Ancient Konkurs missiles defeat Abrams tanks, while super uber TOW does not penetrate a T-90... but that doesn't mean anything right?

    Modern MBTs follow what is basically amounts to the old battleships of yore's all or nothing model when it comes to armor protection so basically only the front turret and hull are armored to resist the majority of threats. That the Konkurs can penetrate the Abrams in places where the armor isn't as strong is not really an issue as much as the Abrams crew allowing the Konkurs gunner to target his weakspots when it shouldn't even be presented to them in the first place.

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    From my understanding the 152mm smoothbore will be an engineering and multi-purpose caliber, and any 'anti-armor' capacity will be an auxiliary focus. The most likely purpose is that it will be used to 'engineer' urban fighting battlegrounds to make it impossible for insurgents to bunker in multi-story buildings. One of the most ubiquitous shells would be a 152mm thermobaric shell, in which the explosive power would greatly supersede that of a 203mm HE-Frag shell. 6-10 thermobaric 152mm shells could be used to completely sheer off 1 side of the edifice of a 5-6 story concrete building, completely exposing the insurgent and completely nullifying what little cover they had left. It'll be a anti-fortification/bunker cannon, with some additional and interesting useful secondary, tertiary ancillary/auxiliary abilities.

    The Soviets actually have long since found out that outright demolishing urban structures is actually counter-productive. Yes, denying the enemy defensible positions is nice and all, but at the same time the resulting rubble presents difficulties for infantry and vehicles that have to move through the debris field. Said debris also could serve as cover and concealment in a pinch for infantry and could even be strewn with IEDs so you're back to square one with not much to show for and tons of valuable shells expended.

    Instead, what most armies that have recent urban experience - the Russians, the Americans, the Israelis seem to have converged on is the delayed action tank calibre HE shell. Its not grotesquely powerful that it demolishes large sections of buildings in one go but it could punch through walls and detonate inside, expending lethal fragmentation that clears the room and nearby portals as well as effectively concussing everyone within the structure, paving the way for infantry to go in and secure the building now that the occupants are effectively incapacitated.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28751
    Points : 29281
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:10 am


    From my understanding the 152mm smoothbore will be an engineering and multi-purpose caliber, and any 'anti-armor' capacity will be an auxiliary focus.

    Actually now that I think about it.... I remember an episode of Combat Approved where they looked at the Coalition and it included an automatic gun bore cleaner and I seem to remember thinking it was a smoothbore rather than a rifled gun.

    If they have unified the ammo for the 152mm tank gun and the 152mm new artillery ammo then that would certainly be something useful and interesting.

    The most likely purpose is that it will be used to 'engineer' urban fighting battlegrounds to make it impossible for insurgents to bunker in multi-story buildings. One of the most ubiquitous shells would be a 152mm thermobaric shell, in which the explosive power would greatly supersede that of a 203mm HE-Frag shell.

    I appreciate what you are saying but they could just as easily achieve that by calling in artillery support and marking the target with a laser for a guided shell to hit and obliterate... and they can have hundreds of rounds ready to fire.

    Carrying powerful HE rounds in a tank make it vulnerable to exploding if the ammo rack is penetrated... too many HE rounds and even an armoured crew capsule will be in danger.

    6-10 thermobaric 152mm shells could be used to completely sheer off 1 side of the edifice of a 5-6 story concrete building, completely exposing the insurgent and completely nullifying what little cover they had left. It'll be a anti-fortification/bunker cannon, with some additional and interesting useful secondary, tertiary ancillary/auxiliary abilities.

    Again, the thing is that if the enemy has such a structure then a 203mm gun or 240mm mortar could be so much more effective and efficient... or an Su-25 with 250kg bombs or 122mm rockets....


    The vast majority of their military might believe their hype but the designated minders don't, and those guys have managed to forestall confrontations from escalating even further thus far. Not to say they aren't as bloodthirsty as could be but it does mean that not everyone within that organization is as suicidal as to ignore displays of naked force that more than matches their own.

    The cold war history is peppered with examples where one or several idiots on one side or the other made some serious mistakes and escalated things way beyond safe and that we were only saved because people on the other side were sensible and cool headed. It seems that after the end of the cold war all the smart people in the west have retired and have been replaced by idiots.


    Modern MBTs follow what is basically amounts to the old battleships of yore's all or nothing model when it comes to armor protection so basically only the front turret and hull are armored to resist the majority of threats. That the Konkurs can penetrate the Abrams in places where the armor isn't as strong is not really an issue as much as the Abrams crew allowing the Konkurs gunner to target his weakspots when it shouldn't even be presented to them in the first place.

    Abrams tanks cannot be penetrated by even the latest Russian weapons... how dare you suggest obsolete old cold war Soviet weapons could do the job...

    The turret on the Abrams is enormous, as is the turret bustle and even if the vehicle keeps its hull pointed at you the sides of the turret will always be a target most of the time... and that is where most of the ammo is kept.

    avatar
    limb

    Posts : 152
    Points : 160
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  limb Fri Mar 12, 2021 7:47 am

    Hasn't Kontakt-5 been continuously upgraded in each series? Like 2000s kontakt-5 is different from 1985 kontakt 5.

    Any news on T-14 production in the last few months. Either there is a huge technological or production bug, or its going well enough to be classified.
    miketheterrible
    miketheterrible

    Posts : 5707
    Points : 5681
    Join date : 2016-11-06

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  miketheterrible Fri Mar 12, 2021 8:00 am

    It's still undergoing trials. Russia takes at least 2 years to trial something before they commit. Plus they are fixing faults they find during trial. Various electronic parts work fine. Its integration.

    They don't want to be like US. Inteoduce something fast and find out it's shit later (f-35).

    GarryB and Hole like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28751
    Points : 29281
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  GarryB Sun Mar 14, 2021 10:05 am

    Tests need to be performed in different regions and at different times of the year so it often takes 2 years to test and get proper experience for any final changes are made before serial mass production starts...

    Regarding old equipment, it is made with new materials, and over time production and material improvements can change things for the better... some early ATGMs used IR flares to allow the guidance system to track the missile in flight. In modern missiles such flares are replaced with IR frequency LED lights... smaller cheaper lighter and more reliable...
    avatar
    limb

    Posts : 152
    Points : 160
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  limb Mon Mar 15, 2021 5:41 am

    miketheterrible wrote:It's still undergoing trials.  Russia takes at least 2 years to trial something before they commit.  Plus they are fixing faults they find during trial.  Various electronic parts work fine.  Its integration.

    They don't want to be like US. Inteoduce something fast and find out it's shit later (f-35).
    I know its under trials, but there has been an information blackout about any progress for the last 2 years.
    avatar
    Arrow

    Posts : 845
    Points : 843
    Join date : 2012-02-12

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Arrow Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:22 pm

    https://www.e1.ru/news/spool/news_id-69801944.html

    What do you think about this article?
    lancelot
    lancelot

    Posts : 179
    Points : 181
    Join date : 2020-10-18

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  lancelot Thu Mar 18, 2021 11:04 pm

    Sounds like a lot of stressed and overworked people and non work safe environment.
    If what they claim is true, they need to pay a living wage and institute some sort of limitation on work hours.

    Sponsored content

    [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5 - Page 21 Empty Re: [Official] Armata Discussion thread #5

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Apr 23, 2021 12:42 pm